has refused to come on PM in a debate with a fellow candidate.
Aren't they always wanging on about wanting an informed debate?
To be strictly accurate it was the candidate's "people" who declined our offer. But still.
Jump to more content from this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Eddie.. Well that's hardly surprising; there can't be many worms in the rotten woodwork of what used to be Labour that want to be exposed to a dose of reality.
Name and Shame please !
Can we open the book on this one, Eddie?
I'll put 10 to 1 on Hillary Benn.
Didn't you just love the way Bleary Biker sidestepped the Walter Raleigh coat gesture yesterday?
I'm for Harriet. Or Alan. Or - oh, it won't make any difference anyway.
Just listening to Gordon and Martha.
Mumeracy: We've improved but we've got to do better.
Literacy: Ditto. (Edward, please note!)
Martha asks Gordon if he'll have to start courting Big Business over City Academies. A quick side-sashy from Gordon.
He's been visiting future entrepreneurs - youngsters undertaking skills training at school and college. So - we can expect to be able to locate a British plumber again? He seems to favour apprenticeships and work training. Sounds quite good.
On to security:
The need to win the battle of hearts and minds. (Oh that phrase has started to sound stale, hasn't it?) A review of the way the security committee operates - Let's hope he does. Doesn't sound like he thinks it's urgent though.
World Bank: No comment.
HIP: Legal challenge anticipated. Gordon supports them (HIPs, that is - on environmental grounds).
Contest: Would he lend supporters to McDonnell? It would be dishonest, says Gordon. Hasn't decided whole he'll support as deputy. 'Speaking to the aspirations of the people' - Hm, I think we'll hear that phrase again.
Gordie and Reidie: Denies there were any rows. They laugh and joke about the media stories. Well I'll be d*mned!
A shared national purpose ..... unite ..... face the issues ..... blah blah blah.
I think I'll go and put the shed up.
Eddie:
That's fine, just be sure to remind his "people" of that next time they 'phone up desperate to get their boss on to talk about something.
"And now we turn to Mr X, who didn't want to share a studio with Y some time ago, but now has decided s/he wants to talk to us. Mr X... picky, aren't you?"
Bet it was Harriet.
Just listened to Alan J with Martha, and rather warmed to him. Up 'til now I was leaning toward Peter H. I'd love a woman to have the job, but don't fiind either of the available options credible. I like Hillary Benn too, but he might be better out of it for a while to preserve his future leadership credentials.
Oh poo, I'm being told I'm talking too much again. Will twiddle my thumbs until I can post this. La la la.....
I'm with Jonnie. Names, please! My money on the party not wanting to appear would be the Bleary one...
Talk about hoist with my own petard: Gordon wasn't talking Mums, he was talking Nums ...... I'll bet you had a quiet snigger, Eddie!
I think Alan J's comments to Martha about what made him 'special' didn't really do it for me, though he seems a nice enough guy. So I think I've changed my mind on that one. Gordon probably needs somebody who could stand up to him intellectually or there could be trouble.
Well I don't really want to draw your attention too far into the future, but I can't wait for this to be all chip papers. 'Dave' and Boris have much too an easy a ride of it. Very soon, it will be policies, and not personalities. And I'm chomping at the bit. Exactly what sort of alternative are 'Dave' and Boris bringing? No oil wars? Affordable housing for all? Or plain old tax-cuts for their owners? Can our 'way' deliver such things, or does it show it's failures?. Let me at them?
JP xx
"Wanging". Is that a technical term Eric?
BigSis;
I'm with you on Mr. Benn. I think a 2rd helping of the Mair interview technique in under three weeks is more than the chap can bear. I'd like to know who though. If s/he can't stand the heat they probably shouldn't be trying to get into the kitchen.
So I'll back Jonnie's call to Name & Shame.
Just cast my eye down the list of 6 wannabees. What an insipid lot! Benn the lesser son of a greater father. Blears the left-wing firebrand gone Blairite. Ditto for Hain, whose sun set when they released Mandela, thereby removing his raison-d'etre. Who also has the misfortune to look like David Dickinson's long-lost brother (or should that be Tangoman?). Cruddas the non-entity. Harman the has-been. Or Johnson the postie.
Out of all of them Johnson seems to have the most about him. Sequin muttered something favourable about him on the Blog last week (?) following an interview that she did with him, in which he came across fairly well.
JPA;
You're obviously a fan of the pre-war black-and-white hooror movie. But I'm not sure what part Boris plays in all this? Is this a reference, via his well-known film version of Frankenstein (1931), to the Labour front bench, memorably described as the 'Living Dead' last week by that nice Mr. Cameron? Anyway, he died in 1969 (Boris Karloff, not Cameron). So he doesn't seem very relevant today.
Si.
Simon,
Bring them on! xx
What is 'Dave' going to change that made the voters turn against TB? I can't wait to see the 'black and white' (no, get it out of your head, not 'movies(!)')
And I picked on Johnson as 'Dave's' old drinking buddy.
Is this for the brow? See you there later Simon, xx
Please name and shame, I am trying to revise and could do with some light relief later on...
Regards
John
What a good day for lower-down-the-list news items.
Junior doctors job application scheme scrapped.
Inflation down.
FIFA to investigate West Ham transfer deal.
Lester Pigott in Intensive Care in Switzerland.
Sam Allardyce having the shortest between-jobs family break in football history.
Gormley's pointless box-of Fog.
Can't wait for 5 o'clock.
Si.
I hope your postman reads this Simon.
I bow to your's and Cameron's and Johnson's natural born right to rule.
How could I have been so mistaken. xx
So Eddie
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
NAME AND SHAME !
It's what you do!
Simon;
What are Cameron's/Johnson's/your priorities? Why will this be a better land to be part of? You only have a few weeks....
JP xx
Probably just getting into practice for when they get the job.
"No, I don't want to discuss that"
Name and shame so I can put a few quid on them winning.
Rachel (6)
La La La...
That was Spain's winning entry in the Eurovision Song Contest, bringing us back to the topic of greatest interest this week. There was a complaint afterwards that they had stolen the tune from "Let's all drink to the death of a clown."
Talking of clowns, I'm sure all will be revealed in the programme tonight, won't it, Eddie?
Name and Shame.
On second thoughts, you did say they were always (welly-?) wanging about informed debate.
The defaulter probably realised they weren't adequately informed to participate.
Jonnie @ (16)
What is it you're trying to say?
;-)
Aperitif (10):
Re: "wanging". It must be a ´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio word, as I first heard it uttered by Sumo err, Sue McGregor on The News Quiz several yonks ago.
To be Fair, It's early days yet. It would be unwise to show your hand this early in the Deputy leadership race.
We can be sure several MP's are considering their options but will hold off till the last moment before declaring them self's as candidates.
Let's wait and see.
To be fair, It's early days yet. It would be unwise to show your hand this early in the deputy leadership race.
We can be sure several MP's are considering their options but will hold off till the last moment before declaring as canditates for the post.
Let's wait and see. Interesting times are ahead.
SSCat (23) I'm not sure I trust that Suma woman, but I think I belive you.
Lee (22) Hahahahaha!
Well this is an issue as the list of MPs declared are officially released at six pm today.
Maybe they all wanted to avoid the grim questions from PM, else wanted to avoid the probing questions at six by being either the official headlines else not included at all.
regards
John
SSCat (23) I'm not sure I trust that Suma woman, but I think I believe you.
Lee (22) Hahahahaha!
SSCat (23) I'm not sure I trust that Suma woman, but I think I believe you.
Lee (22) Hahahahaha!
SSCat (23) I'm not sure I trust that Suma woman, but I think I believe you.
Lee (22) Hahahahaha!
certainly name and shame
JPA;
Don't be bitchy!
No-one has a natural-born right to rule. Except the Queen, of course.
People get tired once a party has been in power for quite a while. There comes a feeling that it's naturally time for a change. That time may be at the next General Election, perhaps at the one after that. The political tide ebbs and flows as it always has done.
RE; my list of contenders for deputy, I stand by my 'insipid' comment. Where is the natural authority figure amongst them? Where is the one who commands the respect of the Labour Party and the electorate? Johnson is probably the closest thing on that list.
Go back to a previous such election when Tony Benn went forward (and missed out). I profoundly disagree with what he stands for, but I respect the man for being firm in his principles and always backing them. You always knew what he stood for. You can't say the same for this list, including his son. I don't know what any of them stand for. So I have to revert to personality and on that basis Johnson would get my vote (if I had one!).
What is Cameron going to change? How would I know. He's in the middle of changing the direction of a major political party. What will the outcome be? We'll all have to wait and see. I hear that they are changing tack on Grammar schools and City Academies today though.
"Mistaken". About what?
My priorities are pretty irrelevant. But since you ask; Live a decent life. Support my two young daughters. Try to return in some measure the love of my friends and family. That's pretty much it really. What else can you do, at the end of the day?
As for Cameron's priorities, ask him, not me. And leave poor old Boris out of it. I can't make my mind up whether he genuinely a buffoon, or a very acute brain hiding under that duffer's exterior. I didn't know that he was Cameron's drinking buddy. You must know them both pretty well.
"Why will this be a better land?" Who knows if it will? Who knew in 1997 whether it would or not? In some respects it is better than then, in others not so.
Why do I have only a few weeks? Should I see a doctor? Is it serious?
Si.
Si:
Can I just challenge you on one point in your posting yesterday? I think you may be premature in dismissing Harriet Harman as a 'has been'. While she has most definitely had her ups and downs over the years, she retains considerable respect with her colleagues.
She made serious blunders, particularly in cutting lone parent benefits and her strong support of the Iraq War. She is, however, capable of admitting her mistakes and learning from her blunders. She now does what she did best: campaigning for women and children. I think her handling of the Damilola Taylor murder makes her worthy of our respect, and I think she is a politician of some integrity and consdierable personal ability.
The fact that she used to work with Gordon Brown, and that he may well respond positively to working with a woman of considerable diplomacy, could make her a good candidate for the Deputy-ship.
Gosh, this is spooky. Just as I pressed the button to send my posting about Harriet Harman, she appeared on Woman's Hour. I'm listening to her now.
What are the chances of that happening, I wonder?
BigSis;
Of course you can. She'll probably get elected anyway, now that I've summarily dismissed her chances. :-)
I was thinking of how she was the first Blair SecHealth & Social Security. That Frank Field was given the remit to "think the unthinkable" as her minister. And how the whole fracas which blew up because he did what he was told finished his ministerial career and totally derailed hers.
I'd love to know the story behind that episode, because so much of what Field came up with seemed like nothing more or less than plain common-sense and he had enormous authority from his time in opposition as a deep thnker on Social Security. It was known that the two of them didn't get on well.
In honesty I thought that he was the more capable thinker. Which made it seem that she was an over-promoted place-woman to fill a Cabinet seat with a woman, to bump up the numbers. I think that she's at the right level now, as a minister of state. I don't think that she's Secretary material.
But that, of course betrays confusion of the role of deputy leader of the Labour Party and her future role in Goverment, the two being (theoretically) unconnected.
Oh, I don't know. None of them are that appealing. But if Gordon needs a counter-weight to his perceived dourness then I still maintain that Johnson is the man. He always comes across well in every interview that he does.
Benn was the bookies favourite, but is struggling to get the names to back his bid. I don't think that he'll make it. Nor Cruddas. Which leaves a four-horse race, two chaps, two ladies. A nice balance.
Si.
So, Big Sis, should I think again about Harriet, then? I used to have a lot of time for her, but I just don't feel that she has achieved very much in the last ten years. Perhaps that wasn't her fault. The fuss (rather unfair, I thought) over her choice of schooling for her kids was damaging and she never really seems to have recovered. I heard some of her interview on WH this morning and found her arguments for a woman's perspective at a high level in government persuasive. I think she would be capable of influencing her colleagues in Cabinet, but I just wish I was more convinced that she could really resonate with the voters that the Party has lost over the last 5-6 years.
Rachel: It would appear we're thinking along similar lines. My posting above may give you some extra thought. I'd like to know if all or any of her gaffs have been the result of:
(1) Women's general struggle to push through the Glass Ceiling
(2) Women's difficulty in balancing their home/work roles
(3) Having to cowtow to demands from No.10 or No.11 when she was Secretary of State
or
(4) The desire of any politician at any given time to relinquish personal principle for political advancement.
If she can convince me (and others) that she is now tough enough to hold firm to her own principles and to stand up to the pressures from elsewhere, I fully endorse her. I think I may try to make contact with her office on just these points ....... ;o)